Also in the news

[Ric Flair]

Men are 2.5 times more likely to be attacked in public than a woman. A woman is 2.5 times (likely higher) more likely to be the victims of a sexual assault. In both of these scenario's the overwhelming majority are carried out by men.

 

I'm fascinated as to what drives these people (mostly men) to do this. Is it the attitudes of men that are the driver to this? There's obviously a lot of pain, hatred and emotional problems that are behind this and the root cause is what needs to be understood to try and change society. 

 

It's not just women who are made to feel unsafe, as a lad growing up it was no walk in the park at times when going somewhere in the dark and some of them fear can be felt still now and I kind of can relate to what a large percentage of women are made to feel day in, day out and that's just horrible.

 

Why are men attacking other men and women? 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Men are 2.5 times more likely to be attacked in public than a woman. A woman is 2.5 times (likely higher) more likely to be the victims of a sexual assault. In both of these scenario's the overwhelming majority are carried out by men.

 

I'm fascinated as to what drives these people (mostly men) to do this. Is it the attitudes of men that are the driver to this? There's obviously a lot of pain, hatred and emotional problems that are behind this and the root cause is what needs to be understood to try and change society. 

 

It's not just women who are made to feel unsafe, as a lad growing up it was no walk in the park at times when going somewhere in the dark and some of them fear can be felt still now and I kind of can relate to what a large percentage of women are made to feel day in, day out and that's just horrible.

 

Why are men attacking other men and women? 

This is purely my own take, but for me it's entirely about power - some people are so broken that they want to feel the rush of having that power over another person for their own benefit. Those kinds of assaults - sexual or not - mostly play into the same idea, unless the driver is purely financial like in the case of an aggravated robbery and it's certain the perpetrator needs the money.

 

How this all plays into the above is that as Buce mentioned earlier, most often these sadists and sociopaths begin with much more "mundane" activities involving demeaning women and other blokes. The attitudes that normalise this allow such folks to think that it's somehow socially acceptable to do so and so they then proceed to the next level. Perhaps removing that normalisation and sorting out those attitudes might head off such problems - or make them more identifiable, at least - before they manifest themselves in much worse ways.

[Scotch]

46 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Men are 2.5 times more likely to be attacked in public than a woman. A woman is 2.5 times (likely higher) more likely to be the victims of a sexual assault. In both of these scenario's the overwhelming majority are carried out by men.

 

I'm fascinated as to what drives these people (mostly men) to do this. Is it the attitudes of men that are the driver to this? There's obviously a lot of pain, hatred and emotional problems that are behind this and the root cause is what needs to be understood to try and change society. 

 

It's not just women who are made to feel unsafe, as a lad growing up it was no walk in the park at times when going somewhere in the dark and some of them fear can be felt still now and I kind of can relate to what a large percentage of women are made to feel day in, day out and that's just horrible.

 

Why are men attacking other men and women? 

Absolutely. The town i grew up in (which i imagine isn't much different from most), there were areas that you simply could not walk through as you WOULD be attacked. 

It was probably safer for some of my female friends to walk in these places than it was for me so it gives you a fair amount of empathy for woman who pretty much have that on their minds at all times. 

[nnfox]

52 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Men are 2.5 times more likely to be attacked in public than a woman. A woman is 2.5 times (likely higher) more likely to be the victims of a sexual assault. In both of these scenario's the overwhelming majority are carried out by men.

 

I'm fascinated as to what drives these people (mostly men) to do this. Is it the attitudes of men that are the driver to this? There's obviously a lot of pain, hatred and emotional problems that are behind this and the root cause is what needs to be understood to try and change society. 

 

It's not just women who are made to feel unsafe, as a lad growing up it was no walk in the park at times when going somewhere in the dark and some of them fear can be felt still now and I kind of can relate to what a large percentage of women are made to feel day in, day out and that's just horrible.

 

Why are men attacking other men and women? 

My take is that there are many factors.  Education is one, environment is another, peer pressure plays a part and there are others too.  However, at the base of all this, I believe it is something much more primal.  It seems that most of these male offenders are typically younger males, of course there are lots of examples where older men have offended too but I would think that there is a concentration of offenders in that 18-30 age bracket.  Plenty outside of that, but a concentration at least.  It's well documented in psychology that in early years, children seek the approval of their parents and as the get into adolescents, they switch to seeking approval from the wider tribe as they make their own way in life, hence why teenagers rebel against their parents and spend time showing off to their peers.  Going back to that hunter/gatherer past, I suspect that males would view other males as a threat and one of the first things that happens would be an assessment of 'could I defeat my opponent in battle?'.  And when they look at females, an initial thought would be more towards 'could this woman be a mate and bear my children?'.

 

Fast forward 10,000 years and whilst society, technology and the rule of law have moved on massively and very quickly, our evolutionary brains haven't and those primal urges remain in society.  Thankfully most men surpress these tendancies but some don't/can't/won't.  The result is this state of friction between unacceptable human nature and the expectations of a civilised society.

 

Education can have a great effect and we should absolutely strive to better educate men and women about what is acceptable and not acceptable, but we are just not going to be able to flick a switch and make it go away overnight.  So long as there a humans on Earth, this problem will exist - albeit to a lesser extent as we move through the centuries.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, nnfox said:

My take is that there are many factors.  Education is one, environment is another, peer pressure plays a part and there are others too.  However, at the base of all this, I believe it is something much more primal.  It seems that most of these male offenders are typically younger males, of course there are lots of examples where older men have offended too but I would think that there is a concentration of offenders in that 18-30 age bracket.  Plenty outside of that, but a concentration at least.  It's well documented in psychology that in early years, children seek the approval of their parents and as the get into adolescents, they switch to seeking approval from the wider tribe as they make their own way in life, hence why teenagers rebel against their parents and spend time showing off to their peers.  Going back to that hunter/gatherer past, I suspect that males would view other males as a threat and one of the first things that happens would be an assessment of 'could I defeat my opponent in battle?'.  And when they look at females, an initial thought would be more towards 'could this woman be a mate and bear my children?'.

 

Fast forward 10,000 years and whilst society, technology and the rule of law have moved on massively and very quickly, our evolutionary brains haven't and those primal urges remain in society.  Thankfully most men surpress these tendancies but some don't/can't/won't.  The result is this state of friction between unacceptable human nature and the expectations of a civilised society.

 

Education can have a great effect and we should absolutely strive to better educate men and women about what is acceptable and not acceptable, but we are just not going to be able to flick a switch and make it go away overnight.  So long as there a humans on Earth, this problem will exist - albeit to a lesser extent as we move through the centuries.

I would agree that it is a problem that is always going to be a matter of mitigation, rather than elimination, for the reasons you state.

 

I do think that in the future or even now the capability exists or would exist to flick that "switch" as you say, given the knowledge of brain chemistry and psycholpharmacology that we have...but that would raise ethical consequences that could well be worse than the problem they address.

[Buce]

23 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

Places of beauty, whether natural or manmade, where we can admire rather than have to do anything! One of the most spectacular things we have seen in Spain so far was actually a man made dam and reservoir, but just the size of it was overwhelming. I love architecture

 

El Chorro gorge is probably one of the most spectacular natural sights in the whole region, particularly if you have a head for heights as it can be reached by the Camino del Rey (King's path), a metre wide walkway bolted to the side of the gorge:

 

 

For scenery you are spoilt for choice, but the National Parks are all wonderful: Sierra Nevada National Park (nearest to you), Sierra de Andújar, Sierra de Hornachuelos spring to mind.

 

Quote

 

, but old rather than modern, I could spend hours looking around churches, wandering village streets and looking in museums about local history.

 

There are too many to list, but a quick Google of Moorish/Roman/Phonecian ruins will throw up dozens. The 'White' villages (pueblos blancos) in the area around Ronda (itself well worth a visit, preferably outside of the tourist season) are magnificent: off the top of my head, Arcos de la Frontera, Grazalema, Zahara de la Sierra, Ronda, and Setenil de las Bodegas are probably the best examples.

 

Quote

 

We're not really big on cities, although we liked Valencia when we stayed there overnight on the way here and we will visit them all at some point, but we'd rather spend an afternoon wandering around a small town or village ending up eating something we can't pronounce but we know is loved by the locals. Cartagena is first on my visiting list when we are allowed to travel further afield, and in the other direction there is supposedly a beautiful natural reservoir in Baza with some lovely restaurants and plenty of  people watching. 

 

I hear what you're saying about cities (I largely feel the same) but I strongly recommend making Granada and Cordoba an exception. The old parts of both cities are the best examples of Moorish architecture you'll find anywhere. Plenty of authentic tapas bars too.

 

Give me a day or so to find my journals and I'll give you more, though my focus has always been on hiking trails which may not be of much interest to you.

Edited 13 March 2021 by Buce

[Collymore]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

as a lad growing up it was no walk in the park at times when going somewhere in the dark

Do you remember the the Tilton Possie mate? The old stories of walking through Tilton Park at night were harrowing! 

[Ric Flair]

17 minutes ago, Collymore said:

Do you remember the the Tilton Possie mate? The old stories of walking through Tilton Park at night were harrowing! 

Hahahaaa bad times they were mate, that's why we used to stay in and get addicted to Championship Manager 😂

[Corky]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Men are 2.5 times more likely to be attacked in public than a woman. A woman is 2.5 times (likely higher) more likely to be the victims of a sexual assault. In both of these scenario's the overwhelming majority are carried out by men.

 

I'm fascinated as to what drives these people (mostly men) to do this. Is it the attitudes of men that are the driver to this? There's obviously a lot of pain, hatred and emotional problems that are behind this and the root cause is what needs to be understood to try and change society. 

 

It's not just women who are made to feel unsafe, as a lad growing up it was no walk in the park at times when going somewhere in the dark and some of them fear can be felt still now and I kind of can relate to what a large percentage of women are made to feel day in, day out and that's just horrible.

 

Why are men attacking other men and women? 

Probably a lot of reasons. The thrill of it, arrogance, insecurity, paranoia, power, territory, notoriety. I suppose these people get different things out of it. 

 

You're right, I've certainly felt unsafe. I don't believe I'll be sexually assaulted (although sexual assaults on men aren't unheard of) but more likely to be robbed of possessions or intimidated.

 

The general public, most of whom are law abiding and decent, are trying to get into the minds of people they'd never want to be associated with or be near. Attitudes are a problem (on both sides of the inappropriate touching/ comments debate, I think we need a blanket "It's not on" mentality instead of the laughing it off because a woman said it- an inappropriate act is wrong whoever does it). 

 

Some people just believe they can do what they want, when they want and don't care who it hurts or upsets. Very worrying.

[Fox92]

12 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Now charged with murder

 

BBC News - Sarah Everard: Met Police officer charged with murder https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56331948

What does that say for the future? Trust needs to be restored because of this, especially of ununiformed patrols which looks like his role was.

 

The trial will be interesting to hear details of what he actually did in terms of whether he lured her in etc.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Corky said:

Probably a lot of reasons. The thrill of it, arrogance, insecurity, paranoia, power, territory, notoriety. I suppose these people get different things out of it. 

 

You're right, I've certainly felt unsafe. I don't believe I'll be sexually assaulted (although sexual assaults on men aren't unheard of) but more likely to be robbed of possessions or intimidated.

 

The general public, most of whom are law abiding and decent, are trying to get into the minds of people they'd never want to be associated with or be near. Attitudes are a problem (on both sides of the inappropriate touching/ comments debate, I think we need a blanket "It's not on" mentality instead of the laughing it off because a woman said it- an inappropriate act is wrong whoever does it). 

 

Some people just believe they can do what they want, when they want and don't care who it hurts or upsets. Very worrying.

Yep.

 

However, that isn't really a new problem. Indeed, those that did it in the times of old were often called conquerors or heroes, provided they were successful enough to write the narrative.

 

For me, moving away from that and mitigating it as much as possible isn't just a good moral thing, it's also critical in keeping civilisation together.

[Ric Flair]

Is there an element of society still only being a generation or two away from when women were " owned " by their partners who went out and earned the money whilst they stayed at home? This power control is also flipped in our generation whereby women if they want to can go out and have any man they want on a night out within reason and yet men aren't able to exert that same control and power and you get a percentage of absolute cretins who can't handle that. 

 

I do believe we need to change the attitudes and not turn a blind eye to the way people (mainly men) treat others and in time let's hope it improves. As I said before this isn't just about men attacking women or women feeling unsafe, men are attacking other men more frequently and society is broken. Its horrendous and whatever needs to be done to shift this needs to happen.

 

The bottom line is though, so much more needs to change and I'm pretty disgusted at things I've seen and heard over the years that only now am I understanding how this is happening. 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Is there an element of society still only being a generation or two away from when women were " owned " by their partners who went out and earned the money whilst they stayed at home? This power control is also flipped in our generation whereby women if they want to can go out and have any man they want on a night out within reason and yet men aren't able to exert that same control and power and you get a percentage of absolute cretins who can't handle that. 

 

I do believe we need to change the attitudes and not turn a blind eye to the way people (mainly men) treat others and in time let's hope it improves. As I said before this isn't just about men attacking women or women feeling unsafe, men are attacking other men more frequently and society is broken. Its horrendous and whatever needs to be done to shift this needs to happen.

 

The bottom line is though, so much more needs to change and I'm pretty disgusted at things I've seen and heard over the years that only now am I understanding how this is happening. 

Yeah, I think so. And the thing about it is that, as mentioned above, such attitudes were lauded not all that long ago in history.

 

Perhaps that's another part of it - it's not just that element missing the attitudes themselves have changed, but also their resentment at such attitudes no longer being laudable, or even acceptable. And yes, the speed of change often makes things difficult there too.

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Is there an element of society still only being a generation or two away from when women were " owned " by their partners who went out and earned the money whilst they stayed at home? This power control is also flipped in our generation whereby women if they want to can go out and have any man they want on a night out within reason and yet men aren't able to exert that same control and power and you get a percentage of absolute cretins who can't handle that. 

 

I do believe we need to change the attitudes and not turn a blind eye to the way people (mainly men) treat others and in time let's hope it improves. As I said before this isn't just about men attacking women or women feeling unsafe, men are attacking other men more frequently and society is broken. Its horrendous and whatever needs to be done to shift this needs to happen.

 

The bottom line is though, so much more needs to change and I'm pretty disgusted at things I've seen and heard over the years that only now am I understanding how this is happening. 

Quite agree, and it is a fairly depressing lack of empathy in society generally, or rather a all encompassing belief that it is valid and acceptable for individual desires to trump wider societal norms. This isn’t new, but we have the ability to monitor and challenge this like never before.

[sacreblueits442]

2 hours ago, Fox92 said:

What does that say for the future? Trust needs to be restored because of this, especially of ununiformed patrols which looks like his role was.

 

The trial will be interesting to hear details of what he actually did in terms of whether he lured her in etc.

...these institutions are made up of people from the public.!!!

 Because they are in uniforms they are rightly held to a higher standard because of the training that they have gone through and their evaluation throughout the process. The only problem is that they are as much the same as you and me with all the fallabilities that we have. 

  You are going to find that some uniformed officers are as much deviant, cheating, immoral, bigoted, bias,racist and all in all should not hold such powers that we choose to give them, and when that is an accepted norm within that institution it is hard to weed out.

[Ric Flair]

15 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Quite agree, and it is a fairly depressing lack of empathy in society generally, or rather a all encompassing belief that it is valid and acceptable for individual desires to trump wider societal norms. This isn’t new, but we have the ability to monitor and challenge this like never before.

What infuriates me is the viewpoint that the victim is to blame for walking alone or being lured, its an absolute disgrace. Yes, people should use common sense for their own safety but if someone takes the liberty to intimidate or attack another person it is THEIR fault, there is no excuse and there never will be. There is absolutely no blame on the victim, I find this so sickening when I hear it and read it. 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Quite agree, and it is a fairly depressing lack of empathy in society generally, or rather a all encompassing belief that it is valid and acceptable for individual desires to trump wider societal norms. This isn’t new, but we have the ability to monitor and challenge this like never before.

Yes.

 

Unfortunately, those who would lack that empathy often have power and are rather people-savvy, so they are doing their best to get people to dismiss such challenges as "cancel culture" or somesuch.

[nnfox]

16 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

What infuriates me is the viewpoint that the victim is to blame for walking alone or being lured, its an absolute disgrace. Yes, people should use common sense for their own safety but if someone takes the liberty to intimidate or attack another person it is THEIR fault, there is no excuse and there never will be. There is absolutely no blame on the victim, I find this so sickening when I hear it and read it. 

I honestly haven't seen or heard anyone blame the victim.  There is a distinction to be made between commenting on the circumstances of a crime and actually say that it is the victim's fault.  The term 'victim blaming' is actually damaging to the safety of people.

 

For a crime to happen, there needs to be a combination of three things.  All three must be present.

 

1. A victim (it can NEVER be the victim's fault that they are the victim of a crime).

2. An offender (it is ALWAYS the offenders fault a crime occurs because by definition they have to carry out a criminal act on purpose, or in cases of negligence, don't do something that they should have)

3. An opportunity (this is where it gets complicated)

 

The opportunity for a crime is usually created by a mix of actions taken by both victim and offender.  Sometimes the victim acts in a seriously reckless way and the offender has to do very little to 'take advantage' of the opportunity.  Sometimes the victim does everying they reasonably can to protect themselves from crime but a determined offender might plan for weeks or months to engineer an opportunity.  

 

The thing is, there can be valuable lessons to be learned from discussing the actions of the victim as it may prevent someone else from becoming a victim.  Instead there seems to be a growing narrative in society that commenting on the actions of a victim is the same as blaming the victim for their own demise and the conversation is shut down immediately.  

 

Until we live in the utopia where everybody respects everything and everybody else and conducts themselves in a way that is kind, inoffensive and considerate to others, we have to deal with reality.  The reality is we need to look out for each other and figure out ways to stay safe and if hearing about how the opportunity for a crime (any crime) arose then if one or two people take those lessons on board and don't become victims, then that can be a positive outcome.

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, nnfox said:

I honestly haven't seen or heard anyone blame the victim.  There is a distinction to be made between commenting on the circumstances of a crime and actually say that it is the victim's fault.  The term 'victim blaming' is actually damaging to the safety of people.

 

For a crime to happen, there needs to be a combination of three things.  All three must be present.

 

1. A victim (it can NEVER be the victim's fault that they are the victim of a crime).

2. An offender (it is ALWAYS the offenders fault a crime occurs because by definition they have to carry out a criminal act on purpose, or in cases of negligence, don't do something that they should have)

3. An opportunity (this is where it gets complicated)

 

The opportunity for a crime is usually created by a mix of actions taken by both victim and offender.  Sometimes the victim acts in a seriously reckless way and the offender has to do very little to 'take advantage' of the opportunity.  Sometimes the victim does everying they reasonably can to protect themselves from crime but a determined offender might plan for weeks or months to engineer an opportunity.  

 

The thing is, there can be valuable lessons to be learned from discussing the actions of the victim as it may prevent someone else from becoming a victim.  Instead there seems to be a growing narrative in society that commenting on the actions of a victim is the same as blaming the victim for their own demise and the conversation is shut down immediately.  

 

Until we live in the utopia where everybody respects everything and everybody else and conducts themselves in a way that is kind, inoffensive and considerate to others, we have to deal with reality.  The reality is we need to look out for each other and figure out ways to stay safe and if hearing about how the opportunity for a crime (any crime) arose then if one or two people take those lessons on board and don't become victims, then that can be a positive outcome.

 

 

Is there any way where commenting on what a victim could have done differently in the case of crimes like this doesn't carry the implication that they were in part responsible for what happened, because the vast majority of the time "should have done something different" = "did something wrong"?

[nnfox]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Is there any way where commenting on what a victim could have done differently in the case of crimes like this doesn't carry the implication that they were in part responsible for what happened, because the vast majority of the time "should have done something different" = "did something wrong"?

I understand where you are coming from, I understand that it's a tricky subject to approach but there is a difference between saying that the victim did X so therefore it's their fault.  It's not.  But raising awareness of how the opportunity arose might prevent someone else becoming victim of the same crime.  To dismiss any discussion immediately as victim blaming is counter-productive.

 

Of course, there will be idiots who do ACTUALLY blame victims for becoming victims but they are wrong and are in the minority.  Commenting on the circumstances of the crime is not the same as blaming the victim.

[Mike Oxlong]

4 minutes ago, nnfox said:

I understand where you are coming from, I understand that it's a tricky subject to approach but there is a difference between saying that the victim did X so therefore it's their fault.  It's not.  But raising awareness of how the opportunity arose might prevent someone else becoming victim of the same crime.  To dismiss any discussion immediately as victim blaming is counter-productive.

 

Of course, there will be idiots who do ACTUALLY blame victims for becoming victims but they are wrong and are in the minority.  Commenting on the circumstances of the crime is not the same as blaming the victim.

In a nutshell are you saying that provocation can properly be a relevant mitigating factor although not a defence ? 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, nnfox said:

I understand where you are coming from, I understand that it's a tricky subject to approach but there is a difference between saying that the victim did X so therefore it's their fault.  It's not.  But raising awareness of how the opportunity arose might prevent someone else becoming victim of the same crime.  To dismiss any discussion immediately as victim blaming is counter-productive.

 

Of course, there will be idiots who do ACTUALLY blame victims for becoming victims but they are wrong and are in the minority.  Commenting on the circumstances of the crime is not the same as blaming the victim.

I agree with the need for discussion, but with respect I'm still looking for an answer to the question I asked.

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, Fox92 said:

What does that say for the future? Trust needs to be restored because of this, especially of ununiformed patrols which looks like his role was.

 

The trial will be interesting to hear details of what he actually did in terms of whether he lured her in etc.

No reason why we will ever find that out ......couzens is the only person who knows that and why would anyone believe a word he utters ....

[nnfox]

Just now, Mike Oxlong said:

In a nutshell are you saying that provocation can properly be a relevant mitigating factor although not a defence ?

No, not at all.  The responsibility of the crime is 100% on the offender.  It is their actions alone that are taken as mitigating or aggravating the crime.

 

For example, with assaults, mitigating factors relate to if it consisted of a single blow, it was an isolated incident or the offender is of previous good character, shown remorse etc... No mention of the actions of the victim.

[Mike Oxlong]

3 minutes ago, nnfox said:

No, not at all.  The responsibility of the crime is 100% on the offender.  It is their actions alone that are taken as mitigating or aggravating the crime.

 

For example, with assaults, mitigating factors relate to if it consisted of a single blow, it was an isolated incident or the offender is of previous good character, shown remorse etc... No mention of the actions of the victim.

Not sure I agree as per sentencing guidelines 

 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/aggravating-and-mitigating-factors/

 

Provocation is listed as a mitigating factor which can be taken into account to discount against the standard tariff that applies which to me indicates a recognition that the actions of another may have contributed to the commission of an offence whilst not providing a defence for it